First thing that comes to mind is cringe Christian cinema, from slick professional productions like the God's Not Dead series to low-budget works like Donald James Parker's. Would raise some interesting questions about what exactly you're hating about the movie.
Someone let Donald James Parker use AI. 😬
There's material in the 2000 years of Christian tradition from which you can piece together an anti-imperialist version of the faith. but that has to be a forward-looking project, not a retvrn to the true teachings of Jesus and Paul.
Tangentially, this is why I hate the liberal Christian idea that Christianity was a cool anti-imperialist religion until Constantine combined it with the empire. The very earliest Christian texts we have are full of sucking up to Rome and denigrating Jews. There was no pure original form.
The Christian Bible is full of antisemitic propaganda, and the propaganda doesn't stop being antisemitic just because you've chosen to base your religion on it.
less of a butlerian jihad and more of a butlerian discussion about land use and zoning for datacenters
I have forgiven
the sins
which were in
your heart
And which
you were probably
saving
for damnation
Forgive me
they were mortal
so offensive
and contrary to God's law
I haven't been watching The Pitt but I just found out that the exterior scenes are all done at AGH, which is just a couple blocks from where I used to live -- like if they angled the shot right you could probably see my old house.
OpenAI: We’re burning money like the Joker. A miracle needs to happen for us to turn a profit
Microsoft: Please please use our AI systems, we’re teetering on the edge here
Anthropic: I wonder what’ll kill us first: lawsuits, regulations or model collapse
Media and universities: AI is here to stay
Stegosaurus, obviously.
Same goes for every "genius" academic or scholar.
This is literally it. The common thread of all the things that get condemned as "woke" is that they involve caring about the well-being of others, so anti-wokeness is all about ostentatiously and gratuitously putting others at risk.
People keep talking about Vance becoming an antipope, but I think he actually has a lot in common with Martin Luther -- populist rhetoric while opposing actual democracy, hardcore bigot, weird sexual hangups. Luther would have posted his 96 theses on Truth Social if it had been around.
It feels so weird to hear people say they use LLM to summarise a paper when the ABSTRACT exists - it's already been summarised for you!
If there's something you want to find out from the paper which isn't in the abstract, then maybe you should READ IT
It strikes me that even in things like the Matrix where they're all in simulation, it's a shared simulation.
One horror of the chatbot is that everyone is isolated into their own reality with the amplifying social permission of a group, and none of the friction
Kennedy is a eugenicist.
His words and choices to date provide ample evidence of his deep hatred for disabled ‘weaker’ people. All his ‘policy’ is driven by one goal: make the population ‘fitter’ by ‘weeding out the unfit.’
Speak of him as the open, rank eugenicist he is.
I find the expression "anti-X supporters" so weird -- can't we just say "X opponents"? Like, I just saw an article about the Hungarian election that talked about "anti-Orban supporters" going to the polls, and it seems like it would be easier to just say "Orban opponents" went to the polls.
i think a cool thing is that every time some right winger is revealed to have, let’s say, a non-normative sexuality, i get to hear what liberals really think about me but feel they can’t voice :)
Make sure you cite at least three peer-reviewed deep magics using proper APA reference style. And for Aslan's sake, you don't need to include that long-ass Ebsco URL.
We need to seize the means of whiteness.
Practically every other fire related article I cite has a USFS co-author on it.
Every time I learn something about a Republican politician's marriage, I regret it.
I just don't get people who get information and then don't think to check the source. It's not "consensus" if you have two people but only one has the first hand experience (the other one has only the first's reports)
The President calls for genocide and my useless Rep is out here whining about how it might besmirch the honor of the US military. Buddy, that ship sailed a long time ago. Get with the program.
So are you introducing articles of impeachment? You literally have that power, as a sitting member of the House.
This is not a fucking "dilemma." Every person who participates in a war crime, from the top general to Seaman Whatsisname swabbing the poop deck on the aircraft carrier deserves a one-way ticket to the Hague. "Should I do a war crime" is literally the easiest ethical question one can confront.
Democrats in Congress support this. They're all complicit.
Imagine being behind the Moon and not getting scam calls for half an hour
"Those aren't real Christians though!" I dunno, they seem pretty fuckin' real to me. If they aren't real how are they managing to take all of our rights away?
